The heart of the matter: extradition - Page 4

TheMetetron · #31 10-02-2006, 01:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Great post Nate.

I am no expert on international law, but these poker companies are legal entities carrying out legal business in many countries around the world.

Just because the US takes a dislike to it does not mean that the US law applies to these companies in any way or form. It is totally irrelevant (imo) that these companies may or may not accept US customers. The US has no power over them and its as simple as that really.

The US can only bring charges/action against entities under its control (ie its own citizens or businesses with a physical US presence).

A UK Court would laugh at an extradition request for someone who has not committed a crime punishable in UK law AND without even leaving the UK to commit said "crime".

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that was what happened with the Natwest situation. Isn't it? I don't know the details.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I'd imagine that the Natwest situation weighs large on the minds of UK-based gaming execs. Good background here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate,

NatWest is completely irrelevant. They were violating a UK law as well as an American one. Internet Gambling is 100% legal in the UK and extradition requires that the act is illegal in both countries.

That isn't the case here and I can't see in a million years a UK court allowing an extradition for something that isn't illegal in the UK.

bruceypants · #32 10-02-2006, 01:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Iran and North Korea become offshore gaming server havens. They certainly won't be extraditing anyone to the U.S. Of course then I suppose the whole "online gambling funds terrorists" thing might begin to have a shred of validity...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the most likely outcome in my opinion. Online poker for U.S. players isn't going to go away. Instead, it will move from being provided by legitimate sites like PartyPoker to being provided by illegitimate sites of dubious origin. Our government is so [censored] stupid.

I hope all of you guys get out there and vote. The republicans have about 3x as much campaign money as the Dems and the only way the will be defeated is if grass-roots peoples like us get out there and vote.

KDawg · #33 10-02-2006, 02:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
France is one major country that I can think of that isn't a fan of extradicting to the US. i don't know what their take is on internet gambling though

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be wrong, but I believe the only way France will not extradite anyone is because they may face the death penalty. however, if that is not a danger I believe they extradite fairly easily with the US.

[/ QUOTE ]

the US has repeatedly asked for Roman Polanski to be extradicted from his home in Paris and the french government has refused numerous times. I'm not sure if France does this on most things, but from what I have seen and read they rarely extradict to the US

oreopimp · #34 10-02-2006, 02:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The fact is that the "crimes" committed by Party or whoever are not punishable in UK law. It is legal for their business to operate in the UK. Nothing the US can say or do will change this fact. This is not the same as the allegations of financial crime as per Natwest three etc.

Why do you think the US had to wait for BetonSports director and whoever else they try to nab to come on US soil? These directors operate legal businesses in their own jurisdictions and would not be given up by extradition.

If I am a PartyPoker shareholder will I get arrested next time Im in US?

[/ QUOTE ]

word.

As far as Natwest:

Greg Miller · #35 10-02-2006, 02:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]

If I am a PartyPoker shareholder will I get arrested next time Im in US?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, one of the key benefits of a corporation is that it frees owners from legal liability under normal circumstances.

adios · #36 10-02-2006, 09:30 AM

Good post and thanks. I hadn't considered the extradition aspect. Now that you've brought it to our attention I think that other countries will not tolerate the pursuit of their business people as criminals when the activity is legal in the host country. For instance I don't think the Brits would tolerate the U.S. attempts to extradite an exec from Party for breaking U.S. laws. The Brits might discourage the exec privately but I don't see the Brits allowing a public pursut of this. IMO it's political suicide for Brit pols. If Great Britain is the most likely to extradite I think the execs have little to worry about. However, I can understand why they're concerned.

RiverMustelid · #37 10-02-2006, 09:47 AM

I have written to Peter Mandelson, the European Commissioner for External Trade, to ask for clarification on their position on this.

Given previous debates over bananas, scottish woollen textiles, I also think this has the potential to be a sizeable issue.

The angle I emphasised was the carve out of US based interests (in particular online horse betting) from the legislation, which reflects protectionism rather than a moral imperative (which sadly is your own business).

Not sure whether it is worth other Europeans doing this? I am angry about this legislation, so dread to think the impact on you guys. Condolences, I'm afraid the US has just lost one of its few European supporters. I just don't know what your country stands for anymore.

breaktwister · #38 10-02-2006, 10:00 AM

Nate - there have been a lot of news reports here in IK about this. You were correct in the directors simply fear ending up in American jails.

They have got some very poor legal advises that have potentially bust their company (certainly Party will no longer be the top dog - even if all this comes to nothing).

If I was their legal advisor I would tell them to issue a statment saying US financial laws do not apply to them and I would tell their directors not to visit US!

It is unreal that the directors would cripple their company voluntarily without a fight. It doesnt make sense for them to say "well we have a good presence in the rest of the world anyway" - 70% or more of their customers were from US and with the US casual player gone the customers from the rest of the world will be also.

CaptainBusto · #39 10-02-2006, 10:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone have

- a breakdown of where sites are located?
- even better, informed opinions on how extradition-friendly those countries are?

[/ QUOTE ]

party, pacific (888) - gibraltar (UK)
stars - isle of man (UK)
ongame - sweden
full tilt - USA (guess they are the most screwed here?)
paradise - UK (how come they dont cave same as party/888 then?)
crypto - canada
bodog - costa rica
ultimate - canada
absolute - canada(?)
b2b - sweden
wpx - antigua

adios · #40 10-02-2006, 10:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Nate - there have been a lot of news reports here in IK about this. You were correct in the directors simply fear ending up in American jails.

They have got some very poor legal advises that have potentially bust their company (certainly Party will no longer be the top dog - even if all this comes to nothing).

If I was their legal advisor I would tell them to issue a statment saying US financial laws do not apply to them and I would tell their directors not to visit US!

It is unreal that the directors would cripple their company voluntarily without a fight. It doesnt make sense for them to say "well we have a good presence in the rest of the world anyway" - 70% or more of their customers were from US and with the US casual player gone the customers from the rest of the world will be also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe Party rolled over so easily either. I don't play at Party very much nor do I own any stock of the parent company. With that said it seems like an incredibly dumb move from a business standpoint. If I was a shareholder I'd be outraged.

Edit: I also think that the execs at Party are relatively inexprerienced with running a high growth, high revenue business. Not sure about that as I don't know anything about previous management experience.